Dismissed

Shaikhmohd Haneef Haji Mohd Hafeez v. Peadeep Kumar Vyas and Others

Bombay HC1 Nov 2018CP/343/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a continuation of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's claim for appointment as Medical Officer. The Court found that the District Collector had directed the Zilla Parishad to investigate, and the Parishad communicated its decision rejecting the claim, thereby complying with the previous order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of holding that the order of this Court was complied with in letter and spirit.

Shaikhmohd Haneef Haji Mohd Hafeez Vs Peadeep Kumar… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

948 CONT. PETITION NO. 343 OF 2018 IN WP/14335/2017

¶3

SHAIKHMOHD HANEEF HAJI MOHD HAFEEZ

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

PEADEEP KUMAR VYAS AND OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chaudhari M Mujeebuddin
AGP for Respondent no.4 : Mr. S.S.Dande

¶8

…..

¶9

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE

¶10

AND

¶11

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶12

DATE : NOVEMBER 1, 2018

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

2.Petitioner was before this Court in an earlier

¶16

round of litigation, namely Writ Petition No. 14335 of
1997. It was the grievance of the petitioner that

¶17

though the petitioner was interviewed, appointment
order was not issued to the petitioner of Medical
Officer, even though the petitioner was the only

¶18

2 cp343.18

¶19

candidate. The petitioner had made representation to
the Collector respondent no.4, as he was then the
President of the Committee and no decision was taken
on the representation/application. As such, the
petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition in
this Court.

¶20

3.Considering the fact situation, the Division
Bench of this Court directed respondent no.4 the
Collector to decide the representation of the
petitioner, on its own merits, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of four months from the date of
order.

¶21

4.As the order was not complied with, the
petitioner was before this Court.

¶22

5.Simple notice was issued on 6.6.2018.
Initially, simple notice was issued to respondent

¶23

3 cp343.18

¶24

no.2 i.e. Director of Health Services and then simple
notice was issued to respondent no.4 i.e. District
Collector, Jalna.

¶25

6.Mr. Dande, learned AGP appearing for the

¶26

State, on instructions received by him through
respondent no.4 Shri P.B.Khaple, Additional
Collector, Jalna, who is personally present in the
Court, has placed on record a compilation of the
orders. Same is taken on record and marked 'X' for

¶27

identification. The District Collector, Jalna,
considering the order of this Court and the grievance
raised by the petitioner, in an application, dated
28.7.2018, directed the competent authority, namely

¶28

the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna,

¶29

to take appropriate steps. The said order also
states that the post on which the petitioner was
putting his claim, is under the establishment of

¶30

Zilla Parishad. As such, the verification on the
aspect, such as compliance of necessary conditions

¶31

and eligibility criteria is required to be sent by
the Zilla Parishad, Jalna.

¶32

7.By order dated 9.10.2018 the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna communicated the
petitioner the decision. Perusal of this order shows
that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

¶33

Jalna referred to the grievance raised by the
petitioner and the order passed by this Court. It is
further stated in the order that though an
advertisement was issued for selection on the post of
Unani Hakim and the candidates were called upon for
oral interview on 21.1.2002, subsequently the
Regional Staff Selection Board was closed down in
view of the communication dated 10.6.2002. Then it

¶34

is further stated that the post of Unani Hakim was a
reserved post for the candidates under the category
of Scheduled caste candidates. Then, it is stated

¶35

that none of the candidate, who attended the
interview, was from the category of Scheduled Caste.

¶36

5 cp343.18

¶37

Certain queries were also made to the office of the

¶38

Zilla Parishad from the office of the Collector and

¶39

then by referring to all these facts, the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad informed the
petitioner that the claim of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Unani Hakim cannot be
considered. It is also further stated that there are

¶40

certain other posts available at Primary Health

¶41

Centers Hasnabad, Ashti and Sewali to be filled in
and the requisite qualification is BUMS decree

¶42

holder. Then, it is stated that these posts are
filled in by way of direct selection. As such, the
petitioner is at liberty to respond to the
advertisement when such advertisement would be

¶43

published. Thus, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, in his detailed order, assigned the reasons

¶44

for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner

¶45

as well as made known to the petitioner that there

¶46

will be opportunity available to the petitioner to

¶47

stake his claim in future when such occasion arises.

¶48

6 cp343.18

¶49

8.Considering these facts, we are of the

¶50

opinion that the order of this Court is complied with
in letter and spirit, and as such, the petition is
accordingly disposed of.

¶51

dbm

Shaikhmohd Haneef Haji Mohd Hafeez v. Peadeep Kumar Vyas and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikhmohd Haneef Haji Mohd Hafeez v. Peadeep Kumar Vyas and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Bhakarrao Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harsha Jitendra Patil Vs Gulabrao Ananda Patil and Others

Kishor Balraj Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangamner Loni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Mohammad Israil Vs the Governor of Maharashra through Its Executive Engineer and Others

Sudhir Prakashrao Sabane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tanaji Rambhau Shinde (C-4773), Open Prison, Paithan Vs Sachin Ramesh Salave, Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan and Another